1 Info-Tech Research Group
Info-Tech Research Group, Inc. Is a global leader in providing IT research and advice.
Info-Tech’s products and services combine actionable insight and relevant advice with
ready-to-use tools and templates that cover the full spectrum of IT concerns.
© 1997-2012 Info-Tech Research Group Inc.
Vendor Landscape: Collaboration Platforms Stop! Collaborate and listen… to the rapidly changing collaboration marketplace!
2 Info-Tech Research Group
Effective employee-to-employee collaboration is critical for knowledge-
intensive organizations. Social tools, mobile access, and the rise of social
workflow management are rapidly disrupting the collaboration market. Pick a
vendor that best aligns with the needs of your teams!
Introduction
IT leaders who need to understand the feature
sets and major players in the fast-moving
collaboration market landscape.
IT managers involved in shortlisting,
evaluating and selecting a full-featured
platform for enterprise collaboration.
Business unit managers who want to
understand the capabilities of modern
collaboration platforms and how they can
enable superior team performance.
This Research Is Designed For: This Research Will Help You:
Understand what’s new in the enterprise
collaboration market, and how the ongoing
convergence of traditional feature sets with
social capabilities is enabling a new
generation of collaboration solutions.
Evaluate collaboration platform vendors and
products for your enterprise needs.
Determine which products are most
appropriate for particular use cases and
scenarios.
3 Info-Tech Research Group
Executive Summary
Info-Tech evaluated eleven competitors in the collaboration
market, including the following notable performers:
Champions:
• SAP StreamWork, a pioneer in the area of social workflow
management – StreamWork is a robust solution focused on
“getting work done” via the activity stream metaphor and social
ideation tools.
• Cisco WebEx Social, for the second year running, Cisco places in
the Champion quadrant with its rebranding of Quad. The platform
provides an even blend of content, real-time and social
collaboration features, all backed by Cisco’s strong vendor
credentials.
Value Award:
• Acquia, based on the highly flexible Drupal open-source
framework, Acquia allows companies to get up and running quickly
with a variety of collaboration tools.
Trend Setter Award:
• Citrix Podio: an innovative solution that offers a wide breadth of
social features, including workflow management.
Social collaboration is here to stay, and it’s
being beefed up by social workflow
management.
The activity stream is now the dominant way to
consume information in most collaboration
platforms. Forward-thinking vendors are
incorporating tools for social workflow
management into their products that are laser-
focused on helping employees assign tasks,
brainstorm, and complete deliverables.
Collaboration platforms are now a hub for
“getting work done”.
Collaboration vendors are rapidly integrating
their solutions with broader enterprise
application portfolios. Many solutions allow
application-generated content to appear in
activity streams alongside user updates.
SharePoint isn’t the only option for content
management.
The rise of cloud file sharing solutions like Box
and Dropbox is disrupting SharePoint’s
stranglehold on content management.
Info-Tech Insight
4 Info-Tech Research Group
Market Overview
• The enterprise collaboration market emerged from the
need to provide employees with more effective ways to
collaborate than with phone and e-mail. While e-mail is
fine for quick messages between employees, it is an
inefficient medium for carrying out medium to long-term
project-based work.
• Collaboration vendors initially focused on developing
better ways to collaborate around documents. Early
platforms provided employees with tools for managing
document workflows through versioning and library
services. Microsoft SharePoint was an early favorite for
document-centric collaboration.
• The ‘social revolution’ has now impacted the business
world. As social collaboration becomes increasingly
familiar, enterprise collaboration platforms have added
or acquired social tools for their solutions. Further
refinement of social tools and addition of real-time
capabilities have made many platforms juggernauts.
• The integration of both social collaboration and file
sharing tools into one common platform is the direction
in which vendors are currently moving. Real-time
collaboration, such as video conferencing and screen
sharing, are becoming common methods for facilitating
collaboration on projects.
• Social workflow management is an emerging feature set
that we expect will quickly come to dominate the
landscape. An outgrowth of the activity stream, social
workflow management combines user and application
generated content into a seamless experience focused
on task and project-specific methods for “getting work
done”. “Social for social’s sake” is about to disappear.
• Talent management and social collaboration platforms
are complimentary systems, but have not yet been
integrated into one solution. Social performance
management and gamification will be added to existing
platforms at a rapid pace in the coming years.
How it got here Where it’s going
The collaboration landscape is rapidly evolving, and companies must continually evaluate currently deployed
solutions against the innovative products being served up by major vendors in this space. If you don’t keep up
on the tools, IT will be steamrolled by consumerization! The rise of social workflow management, application-
generated content, gamification, and cloud file sharing is offering companies a variety of new options.
5 Info-Tech Research Group
Collaboration Vendor selection / knock-out criteria: market share, mind share, and platform coverage
• Cisco WebEx Social (formerly Quad). A highly interoperable solution with well-balanced features.
• Citrix Podio. With the acquisition of Podio in April 2012, Citrix has grown their offering of social collaboration tools.
• Acquia (Drupal). A commercial, open source company; Acquia provides an affordable option for social collaboration.
• eXo Platform 3.5. Headquartered in France, eXo is growing globally and provides a Java-based platform.
• IBM Social Business. A strong vendor with enterprise-level products, IBM has focused on the collaboration space.
• Microsoft SharePoint 2010. SharePoint is a commonly used solution for document collaboration; the recent acquisition
of Yammer makes it a vendor to watch.
• OpenText Social Communities. With roots in ECM, OpenText provides a strong platform pairing social collaboration
and content management.
• Salesforce.com Chatter. While best known for its CRM solution, Salesforce.com Chatter is focused on connecting
people, improving processes, and building communities through social collaboration.
• SAP StreamWork. SAP provides a great solution for workflow management.
• Socialtext. Focused on the collaboration space, Socialtext provides an effective solution with many deployment options.
• TIBCO tibbr. Launched in January 2011, tibbr has strong emphasis on application-generated activity streams.
Included in this Vendor Landscape:
Collaboration platforms are now introducing the ability to access and contribute to content via mobile devices for workforces
on the go. Forward-thinking vendors are going for full-blown social workflow management. For this Vendor Landscape, Info-
Tech focused on those vendors that offer broad capabilities across multiple platforms and that have a strong market
presence and/or reputational presence among mid-large sized enterprises.
6 Info-Tech Research Group
Criteria Weighting: The Table Stakes
Collaboration platform criteria & weighting factors
15%
20%
15%
50%
50%
50%
Vendor is committed to the space and has a
future product and portfolio roadmap. Strategy
Vendor offers global coverage and is able to sell
and provide post-sales support. Reach
Vendor is profitable, knowledgeable, and will be
around for the long-term. Viability
Vendor channel strategy is appropriate and the
channels themselves are strong. Channel
The three year TCO of the solution is
economical. Affordability
The delivery method of the solution aligns with
what is expected within the space. Architecture
The solution’s dashboard and reporting tools are
intuitive and easy to use. Usability
The solution provides basic
and advanced feature/functionality. Features
30%
30%
15%
25%
Features
Usability
Architecture
Affordability
Product
Vendor
Viability Strategy
Channel Reach
Product Evaluation Criteria
Vendor Evaluation Criteria
7 Info-Tech Research Group
The Info-Tech Vendor Landscape:
The Info-Tech Collaboration Vendor Landscape
Champions receive high scores for most evaluation
criteria and offer excellent value. They have a strong
market presence and are usually the trend setters
for the industry.
Market Pillars are established players with very
strong vendor credentials, but with more average
product scores.
Innovators have demonstrated innovative product
strengths that act as their competitive advantage in
appealing to niche segments of the market.
Emerging Players are newer vendors who are
starting to gain a foothold in the marketplace. They
balance product and vendor attributes, though score
lower relative to market Champions.
For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape is created, see Information Presentation – Vendor Landscape in the Appendix.
The Zones of the Landscape
Cisco Citrix
Acquia (Drupal)
eXo
IBM
Microsoft
OpenText
SAP Socialtext
TIBCO
Salesforce.com
8 Info-Tech Research Group
Balance individual strengths to find the best fit for your enterprise
Product Vendor
Features Usability Viability Strategy Channel
Microsoft
Acquia (Drupal)
Citrix
eXo
IBM *
Cisco
Reach Overall Overall
OpenText
SAP
Salesforce.com
Socialtext
= Exemplary = Good = Adequate = Inadequate = Poor Legend
Afford. Arch.
For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Harvey Balls are calculated, see Information Presentation – Criteria Scores (Harvey Balls) in the Appendix.
TIBCO
* vendor declined to provide pricing and publically available pricing could not be found.
9 Info-Tech Research Group
What is a Value Score?
The Info-Tech Collaboration Platform Value Index
40 50
60 70
80 90
30 20
10
The Value Score indexes each vendor’s
product offering and business strength
relative to their price point. It does
not indicate vendor ranking.
Vendors that score high offer more bang-for-
the-buck (e.g. features, usability, stability,
etc.) than the average vendor, while the
inverse is true for those that score lower.
Price-conscious enterprises may wish to give
the Value Score more consideration than
those who are more focused on specific
vendor/product attributes.
On a relative basis, Acquia (Drupal)
maintained the highest Info-Tech Value
ScoreTM of the vendor group. Vendors
were indexed against Acquia (Drupal)’s
performance to provide a complete,
relative view of their product offerings.
Champion
Sales-
force
12
TIBCO
32
Micro-
soft
58
Cisco
58
Citrix
74
SAP
83
Open-
Text
90
Social-
text
90
Acquia
(Drupal)
100
eXo IBM *
0
Average Score: 60
For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Value Index is calculated, see Information Presentation – Value Index in the Appendix.
For an explanation of how Price is determined, see Information Presentation – Price Evaluation in the Appendix.
* The vendor declined to provide pricing and
publically available pricing could not be found
10
10 Info-Tech Research Group
Table Stakes represent the minimum standard; without these, a product doesn’t even get reviewed
If Table Stakes are all you need from your collaboration platform, the only true differentiator for the
organization is price. Otherwise, dig deeper to find the best price to value for your needs.
The products assessed in this Vendor
LandscapeTM meet, at the very least, the
requirements outlined as Table Stakes.
Many of the vendors go above and beyond the
outlined Table Stakes, some even do so in
multiple categories. This section aims to
highlight the products’ capabilities in excess
of the criteria listed here.
The Table Stakes What Does This Mean?
Basic employee profiles are present in the
platform and can be populated with standard
fields.
Employee
profiles
Threaded discussions are present in the
platform.
Discussion
forums
Presence and the ability to collaborate through
text-based chat.
Basic real-time
collaboration
What it is: Feature
11 Info-Tech Research Group
Advanced Features are the capabilities that allow for granular market differentiation
Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features
offering as a summation of their individual
scores across the listed advanced features.
Vendors were given 1 point for each feature
the product inherently provided. Some
categories were scored on a more granular
scale with vendors receiving half points.
Ability to collaborate in real-time via audio and
video. Ability to web conference or whiteboard.
Real-time
collaboration
Ability to create and moderate team groups/
micro-sites and collaborate using various
methods (i.e. blogs, wikis, polls, etc.).
Community
collaboration
Email and calendar integration, including ‘email
to platform’ abilities and contact list integration.
Personal
Information
Management
Content repositories with library management
capabilities (i.e. versioning, check-in/check out).
Content
Management
Wiki-like repositories, with editing, authorship,
and moderation workflows.
Knowledge
repositories
Employees share searchable information about
themselves and have ability to follow others.
Employee
profiles
Feeds that include user-generated content,
system generated content, and rich content. Activity streams
What we looked for: Feature
Advanced Features Scoring Methodology
For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, see Information Presentation – Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) in the Appendix.
12 Info-Tech Research Group
Advanced Features are the capabilities that allow for granular market differentiation (continued)
Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features
offering as a summation of their individual
scores across the listed advanced features.
Vendors were given 1 point for each feature
the product inherently provided. Some
categories were scored on a more granular
scale with vendors receiving half points.
Social-driven project management. Includes task
management, assignment, and ideation tools.
Social workflow
management
Includes HTML5 apps, native apps for
smartphones/tablets, and geolocation abilities.
Mobile
capabilities
Tagging of content based on user generated and
defined taxonomies. Includes sharable tags. Social tagging
User generated micro-blogs or status updates
that support rich content. Micro-blogging
Ability for managers to drill down into portal and
content activity, such as trends and influencers.
Reporting and
analytics
Search capabilities across profiles, communities,
activity streams and tags.
Platform search
capabilities
What we looked for: Feature
Advanced Features Scoring Methodology
For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, see Information Presentation – Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) in the Appendix.
13 Info-Tech Research Group
Each vendor offers a different feature set; concentrate on what your organization needs
= Feature unsatisfactory = Feature partially present/pending = Feature fully present Legend
Microsoft
Acquia
(Drupal)
Citrix
eXo
IBM
Cisco
OpenText
SAP
Sales-
force.com
Socialtext
TIBCO
Evaluated Features Content
Mgmt PIM
Comm.
Collab. KM Profiles
Real-
time
Micro-
blogs
Social
tagging
Work-
flow Mobile Search
Activity
streams Reports
For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, see Information Presentation – Feature Ranks (Stop Lights) in the Appendix.
14 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
SAP StreamWork
55,000+
Walldorf, Germany
sapstreamwork.com
1972
NYSE: SAP
StreamWork gives teams the tools to get work done with strong workflow management tools
Champion • SAP is an enterprise application software vendor that has been
in the ERP and CRM markets for decades.
• New to Info-Tech’s evaluation, StreamWork is a strong player in
the social workflow management space.
Overview
• StreamWork provides robust social workflow management tools
with very strong project management capabilities.
• The product integrates well with other software (e.g.
SharePoint, Evernote, Box, WebEx and Google Docs).
• It has a comprehensive list of out-of-the-box tools to customize
pages (e.g. pro/con tables, maps, and polls).
• Developers can use the APIs to build even more integration with
enterprise systems.
• Built in analytics tools are solid. The tools are very focused on
delivering data-driven decisions.
Strengths
• Other than basic IM, there is little real-time communication
functionality, which makes this less ideal as a stand-alone
solution. If your company needs live audio/video, StreamWork
will have to be paired with another solution like WebEx.
• StreamWork is one of SAP’s “best kept secrets” – the marketing
footprint of the product is currently small.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 8, between $250,000 and $500,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
15 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
SAP StreamWork shines on workflow management, but also offers a strong feature set across the board
83 3rd out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
StreamWork’s social workflow management tools are the most robust of all vendors reviewed. The firm is
a clear first-mover in pairing social tools with project management capabilities, and demonstrated an in-
depth understanding of collaboration strategy that’s reflected in their product roadmap.
SAP StreamWork has helped us collaborate internally as well as with our customers.
Oliver Fielitz, Key Account Manager, All for One Midmarket AG (source: sap.com)
Apart from marrying systems of record and engagement, SAP StreamWork also
marries collaborative workspaces and social networks. Think about it as a Wiki
meets Facebook and Twitter. So, your workspace for a particular activity functions as
a feed, where you can like, comment or message fellow members.
Rakesh Sharma, Editor, GetApp.com (Source: GetApp.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
16 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Cisco WebEx Social 3.0
63,000+
San Jose, CA
cisco.com
1984
NASDAQ: CSCO
Cisco offers a best-of-breed collaboration platform with an attractive and easy-to-use interface
Champion • Cisco WebEx Social was formerly Cisco Quad.
• Cisco takes a people-centric approach to collaboration, rather
than document-centric. A single document can be distributed to
multiple community groups and individuals at the same time.
Overview
• Cisco WebEx Social offers robust employee profile pages,
complete with the ability to search by expertise.
• The solution supports a wide variety of mobile devices, and
includes HTML5 access and dedicated apps.
• Social tagging can take place on content and on employees,
making it easier to locate the content or employees being
sought after.
• Cisco’s unified post sharing model allows users to create and
share a single instance of content across individuals and
communities.
Strengths
• Social workflow management is not an inherent aspect of this
collaboration platform; task management capabilities are
presently lacking.
• Cisco is also an up-market vendor that is middle-of-the-road on
price. This can be a limiting factor for SMBs looking for
collaboration solutions.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 8, between $250,000 and $500,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
17 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Cisco WebEx Social provides excellent tagging and search capabilities, but lacks in terms of workflow management
58 5th out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Cisco is a solid solution for collaboration as it nails the majority of the advanced features evaluated. This
collaboration platform is best suited for large organizations with distributed offices or for existing Cisco
shops that seek a complimentary solution to Cisco’s unified communications portfolio, particularly
WebEx for web conferencing.
The collaborative communities in Cisco WebEx Social let us warehouse our
intellectual capital and encourage lawyers to share their know-how with colleagues.
Doing things more efficiently provides better value for our clients.
Peter Westerveld, CIO, Minter Ellison
WebEx Social enables us to further expand our business model and the breadth of
advanced services we offer clients looking for social business solutions. Improved
customization capabilities benefit our clients and enable us as a partner to better
integrate WebEx Social within our immersive Collaboration Portfolio offering.
Simon Daykin, CTO, Logicalis (Source: newsroom.cisco.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
18 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
IBM Social Business
433,362
Armonk, NY
ibm.com
1911
NYSE: IBM
IBM has increased investment in social technology and offers a solid solution for collaboration in the workplace
Market Pillar • IBM Social Business includes IBM Connections (social tools),
Lotus Quickr (content management), and Sametime (real-time
communication).
• IBM has a strong strategy and focus for social technology.
Overview
• IBM Connections has a modular approach. Organizations can
decide which modules are most appropriate for their needs and
deploy them accordingly. The modules automatically recognize
each other, allowing work to travel across the components.
• This solution not only makes recommendations on items that
users should focus on, but also supplies the reasoning behind
the recommendations.
• New ideas that are built in the platform have a graduation
option, turning the idea into a project to be worked on.
• Robust integration option for TemboSocial in order to enable
social performance recognition within Connections.
Strengths
• IBM Connections does not provided a pre-defined taxonomy for
tagging content.
• IBM is focused on providing an enterprise-level solution, small
to mid-market organizations that are not already locked in with
IBM may not achieve as much value from this offering.
Challenges
The vendor declined to provide pricing, and
publicly available pricing could not be found
$1 $1M+
19 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
IBM Social Business covers a broad spectrum of feature bases
Info-Tech Recommends:
IBM’s investment in social software has produced a solution that covers an extensive feature range. Mid-
to-large enterprises, looking to cover all major collaboration areas, can realize most of their goals by
going with the Social Business suite.
[IBM Social Business] connects people in an effective manner.
Anonymous
The power of [IBM] Connections is that the knowledge sharing process is totally
embedded in the tool. When a person adds a piece of information, it is automatically
linked to other information available in communities, wikis, or blogs.
Kurt De Ruwe, chief information officer, Bayer MaterialScience (source: www.ibm.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
N/A Value Index
The vendor declined to provide pricing,
and publicly available pricing could not be
found
20 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
SharePoint 2010
~90,000
Redmond, WA
sharepoint.microsoft.com
1975
NASDAQ: MSFT
SharePoint 2010 remains a heavyweight best suited for back-end content management rather than social collaboration
Market Pillar • Microsoft SharePoint commands an impressive market share for
content management: close to 80%. However, the product is
weaker than most of its competitors in the social arena and must
be paired with Lync for real-time communication.
Overview
• SharePoint 2010 remains best-of-breed on the content
management side – its library services functionality make it a
strong choice for organizations primarily concerned with ECM.
• Seamless integration with other Microsoft solutions (notably
Office 2010) makes it a natural fit for Microsoft shops.
• The platform is extensible through third-party applications.
• Deployment options include on-premise and SaaS (Office 365).
Strengths
• SharePoint Foundations is free, but most organizations will find
they require the paid solution (SharePoint Server).
• The solution is dated in many critical areas: first-party mobile
offerings are non-existent, social collaboration features are
mediocre at best, and many firms are going for “lightweight”
alternatives like Box and Dropbox.
• Native functionality may not satisfy certain organizations (e.g.
those needing advanced social features).
Challenges 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 8, between $250,000 and $500,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing solicited from public sources
21 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
SharePoint 2010 is showing its age across a number of critical feature categories
58 5th out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
SharePoint 2010 is best suited for back-end content archival and storage of templates and policies.
Although it can be extended with solutions like Newsgator, native social and mobile functionality just
doesn’t stand up to the competition. However, organizations should evaluate 2013 when released, as
Info-Tech expects Microsoft to remedy a number of SharePoint’s more glaring current deficits.
SharePoint is a very broad tool that is quickly deployable for base needs.
Dean Conners, Director of Information Technologies, Tubular Steel, Inc.
SharePoint is not easy to setup and end users have a really tough time navigating it
and learning to get the most value out of it. It’s tough to structure it intuitively, and
requires a clear vision from the get-go.
Lynnae Ruberg, Application Support Analyst
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
22 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Chatter
4,750
San Francisco, CA
salesforce.com
1999
NYSE: CRM
Salesforce.com Chatter is great for making the workplace more social, especially for those in the SFDC ecosystem
Market Pillar • Launched in 2011, Salesforce.com Chatter offers additional
functionality by providing user-friendly social tools on an
interactive UI.
• Chatter’s platform integrates with a number of popular content
repository solutions and other collaboration suites.
Overview
• Chatter offers the ability to add external partners and clients into
enterprise groups, making it attractive for partner and customer
collaboration.
• Chatter’s mobile app capabilities are quite strong.
• Activity feed algorithm is based on interests and expertise, not
just on what groups employees are a part of, enabling
employees to connect to people and ideas.
• Integrates with other collaboration tools, such as SharePoint.
• Chatter is an excellent add-on to existing content-focused
collaboration platforms.
Strengths
• Chatter’s built-in content management capabilities are very
basic, so organizations must pair it with another collaboration
platform, or a cloud storage service.
• No structural knowledge repositories, such as wikis.
• Other than IM, there are no embedded real-time communication
systems (audio/video); however, this expected to happen
sometime within 2012 or 2013.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing solicited from public sources
23 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Leverage Chatter as a lightweight and user-friendly solution in your existing Salesforce.com CRM or CSM environment
12 7th out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Chatter’s user-friendly UI makes it an easy solution for employees familiar with commercial social media.
The ability to define collaboration in an employee, partner, or customer context makes Chatter
particularly useful for organizations interested in these use cases.
We replaced internal email blasts with announcements on Chatter.
Nikon (source: www.chatter.com)
What's been most amazing about Chatter is how it leverages a secure platform with
a trusted sharing model to enable continuous collaboration within the enterprise.
Mitch Varhula, marketing consultant, Farmers Insurance (source: www.salesforce.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
24 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Socialtext
~50
Palo Alto, CA
socialtext.com
2002
Private
Socialtext’s strong feature set and range of deployment options provide maximum flexibility for SMBs
Innovator • Socialtext was one of the first companies to bring Web 2.0
functionality to the enterprise through social tools.
• Strong best-of-breed option for organizations with specific
internal social networking needs.
Overview
• Deep social collaboration feature set – including social tagging,
activity feeds, and advanced expertise search – make it easy for
knowledge workers to network with one another.
• Integration with SharePoint 2007/2010 allows activity within
SharePoint to automatically show up in activity feeds, and adds
social options to this experience.
• Most diverse deployment options offered of all products
evaluated (e.g. private cloud, public cloud, on-premise, out-of-
the-box appliance).
Strengths
• Weak content management features compared to competing
vendors – organizations that need library services are advised
to look elsewhere (or to use Socialtext to complement existing
content management systems, like SharePoint).
• Real-time collaboration features are primarily achieved through
integrations rather than done natively.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 7, between $100,000 and $250,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
25 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Socialtext’s strong features and attractive price point make it perfect for SMBs needing to boost social collaboration
90 2nd out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Socialtext excels on most features, although Info-Tech was disappointed to see the company had not
done more with social workflow management. Nevertheless, its good feature set, inexpensive price tag,
and unparalleled range of deployment options make it worthy of consideration for pretty much any small
to medium business.
One thing we liked about Socialtext is the learning curve is short, and anyone can do
it. Socialtext helps us distribute knowledge faster. With Signals especially, people
know what's going on and good ideas get acted on fast. It helps us build our
business faster because it's now easier to work together.
Dave Bell, Vice President, Consumer Marketing, Meredith Corporation
People understand each other more, and they know what others are doing. This lets
us respond more quickly to new opportunities.
Tim EbySLPR General Manager, St. Louis Public Radio (source: socialtext.com, case studies)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
26 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Endpoint Security & Data
Protection
1,200+
Abingdon, UK
Sophos.com
1985
Privately Held
OpenText has best-of-breed community management features with strong ECM integration
Innovator
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 7, between $100,000 and $250,000
$1 $1M+
• OpenText has been a long-time player in the Enterprise Content
Management (ECM) and collaboration markets.
• Its Social Communities offers traditional and social tools, with a
solid focus on the latter.
Overview
• OpenText’s community management features are some of the
best we’ve seen – team sites are very well developed.
• Social Workplace plays well with OpenText’s ECM offerings.
• OpenText has a strong analytics solution that allows users to
view real-time usage rates within the context of the page.
• Content management is well supported by this solution.
Versioning controls and access controls are present, and it has
the ability to integrate with SharePoint 2007 and 2010.
Strengths
• In terms of real-time collaboration, OpenText only provides chat
and presence. However, this solution is capable of integrating
with other third-party vendors for additional real-time
capabilities.
• OpenText Social Workplace does not have a solution for task
management or social workflow management.
Challenges
OpenText Social Communities
4410
Waterloo, ON
opentext.com
1991
NASDAQ: OTEX; TSX: OTC
Pricing provided by vendor
27 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Social Communities plays to OpenText’s content management strengths while adding a healthy dash of social
90 2nd out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Organizations that want strong content management features with good back-end integration should look
at OpenText, particularly if they also want social capabilities. The product was also one of the more
attractively priced solutions that Info-Tech saw, making it a good fit for SMBs.
OpenText made it possible to earn points and badges by sharing information,
contributing to discussions, completing assignments, passing tests, or closing deals
for their OpenText Pulse product. The results were more than promising.
Peep Laja, Marketing Architect, Markitekt (Source: blog.kissmetrics.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall
3
Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
28 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Citrix Podio
~7000
Fort Lauderdale, FL
citrix.com
1989
NASDAQ: CTXS
Citrix’s acquisition of Podio has put them on the map in the collaboration platform market space
Innovator • Citrix acquired Podio in April 2012. Podio was founded in 2009
and is a platform that enables social collaboration and workflow
management.
Overview
• Every application has an email address, allowing users to email
content into and out of the platform.
• Citrix Podio offers a simple interface for creating new apps or
modifying existing apps. Any app that is created in Podio can be
added to the Podio home screen for iPhone.
• In terms of workflow management, Podio provides task lists and
notifications. It automatically removes files viewed in your inbox
to prevent email overload.
• Podio has recently launched an iPad app, which includes
access to many of Podio’s core features and apps.
Strengths
• Currently, Podio does not integrate with SharePoint.
• Citrix Podio does not support full-text searching of documents
and expertise search is not readily available. Instead it searches
the metadata and content created on Podio around documents.
• Podio's solution for real-time communication, GoToMeeting,
must be licensed separately.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 8, between $250,000 and $500,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
29 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Podio is a strong solution for workflow and project management; real-time features must be licensed separately
74 4th out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Citrix Podio is a solution that encourages people to work the way they want to work, with an extensive
app store and the ability to custom create apps for workspaces. This cloud-based platform is a solid
solution for highly mobile organizations. Real-time is elsewhere in the Citrix portfolio at additional cost.
From the increased transparency made possible by Podio, we found Podio really
improved our client relationships. Clients can now be involved in the work as it
happens – they can follow it and contribute, so they feel more engaged and satisfied.
Rikke Ulk,Founder and Chief Anthropoligist, Antroplogerne.com (source: Antroplogerne.com)
I would really like to see Podio handle tickets so that we can ditch [our ticketing
system] and use only Podio.
Anonymous
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
30 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
TIBCO tibbr
~2,070
Palo Alto, CA
tibbr.com
1985
NASDAQ: TIBX
tibbr delivers high quality social tools, with a good emphasis on social workflow and ideation
Emerging Player • Launched in January 2011, tibbr by TIBCO offers a variety of
real-time, community, and social collaboration tools.
• tibbr also has integration with many popular enterprise apps,
and can be deployed on the Cloud or on-premise.
Overview
• tibbr offers deep support for app-generated content in activity
feeds, enabling full contextual collaboration.
• Deep, pre-configured business and app integrations for SAP,
Salesforce.com, Oracle, and Microsoft SharePoint.
• tibbr provides access to consumer social media apps and can
invite partners and customers to join groups securely.
• Native mobile apps for all major phones, as well as a magazine
style app for iPads. The desktop app is also very user-friendly.
• “Subjects” function offers an organized taxonomy of community
groups and teams. Also has a useful corporate hierarchy tool.
Strengths
• Real-time capabilities must be licensed separately with Tibcast.
• Knowledge repositories are lacking, and search capabilities do
not currently support full-text document search.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 8, between $250,000 and $500,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
31 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
tibbr’s emphasis on app-generated content makes it a natural fit for those needing “in the flow” support
Info-Tech Recommends:
The more enterprise apps that can be integrated into tibbr’s activity stream and workflow capabilities, the
more value you will see from the platform. This makes it a good fit for larger companies that want to
leverage app-generated content, such as that from middleware, and make their collaboration solution’s
“one stop shops” for in-the-flow, contextual collaboration.
tibbr’s big selling points are its enterprise application integration and customization
capabilities. tibbr enables users to follow topics and “event streams” through a
dashboard that draws data from different data sources – including CRM, ERP, RSS,
and social media systems, such as Facebook and Twitter.
Michael Neubarth, Founder & Director, eMatrix Media Communications (source: www.comparz.com)
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
32 6th out of 11
Value Index
32 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Drupal Commons
200+
Burlington, MA
drupal.org
1999
Private
Drupal Commons by Acquia is a highly flexible solution that receives Info-Tech’s award for best overall value
Emerging Player • Drupal Commons provides an open source alternative to
creating team (and customer!) collaboration portals.
• Acquia, a commercial open source software company, supports
Drupal by providing products, services, and tech support.
Overview
• Drupal Commons provides a pre-configured collaboration
platform out-of-the-box, which is immediately ready for use or
can be further customized with the 16,000 extensions available.
• The ability to collaborate within groups is a strong feature of this
product. Granular permission controls are available and admin
has the ability to create open or closed groups.
• Comments posted to the site can be voted up or down and are
ranked accordingly, allowing the most popular or relevant
comment to appear first.
Strengths
• Email integration with the platform is currently unavailable, this
is expected to be an upcoming feature in their version 3 release.
• The ability to do real-time collaboration (i.e. presence, live chat,
live audio, live video, etc.) requires integration with a third-party
solution.
• The activity stream and micro-blogging features do not natively
support the sharing of rich content.
Challenges
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 7, between $100,000 and $250,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing provided by vendor
33 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
Drupal Commons offers commonly used features out-of-the-box, but many advanced features must be added-on with extensions
100 1st out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
Drupal Commons, being commercially-supported open source, boasts a lower TCO than many other
proprietary solutions. This makes it an affordable option for small-mid market enterprises or
organizations with budget constraints. The highly extensible platform will also appeal to organizations
that desire high degrees of platform customization.
Integration with other systems can be facilitated through mature modules like the
"feeds" and the "services" modules. And there is a large and very professional
community of Drupal companies and developers, so you'll always be able to find
great support.
Robin van Emden, Co-initiator, Stichting Platform57 (source: LinkedIn)
Some modules on which Commons depends, exist for Drupal 6, but no stable
version is available for Drupal 7.
Anonymous
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
34 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
eXo Platform 3.5
180+
Paris, France
exoplatform.com
2003
Private
eXo is a rapidly growing vendor for enterprise collaboration
Emerging Player • eXo offers a cloud-ready portal and uses a service-based
architecture to provide modern collaboration features.
• eXo began as an open-source Java-based project and was the
first Java portlet container in the industry.
Overview
• eXo includes a gadget directory that enables easy access to a
variety of useful tools (e.g. calculator, currency convertor,
translator, etc.); gadgets can also be used to track memory or
analytics.
• eXo’s solution integrates with Outlook for personal information
management via email and calendar.
Strengths
• While eXo’s on-premise solution offers live chat and instant
messaging functionality, eXo’s cloud deployment solution does
not provide any real-time collaboration capabilities.
• eXo does not provide an administratively defined taxonomy for
the tagging of content.
• Reporting engine is also limited, as are search capabilities.
• eXo is also one of the more expensive solutions that Info-Tech
evaluated.
Challenges 3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000
$1 $1M+
Pricing solicited from public sources
35 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape
eXo provides a solid solution for content management, but is lacking in terms of real-time, social tags and search
10 8th out of 11
Value Index
Info-Tech Recommends:
eXo is an enterprise level solution for government, financial services, and insurance verticals. It offers a
flexible platform that can support intranets and customer-facing extranets, and is a leading option for
Java-based organizations. However, certain feature deficiencies, and a steep price make it a less
attractive option for the mid-market.
What we’re hearing
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Features
PIM Micro
-blogs
Social
tags Content
mgmt Search Reports
Activity
streams
Workflow
mgmt
Real-
time Commun.
collab Mobile Profiles Reposi-
tories
Reference clients unavailable.
36 Info-Tech Research Group
The Info-Tech Collaboration Platform Vendor Shortlist Tool is designed to
generate a customized shortlist of vendors based on your key priorities.
Identify leading candidates with the Collaboration Platform Vendor Shortlist Tool
• Overall Vendor vs. Product Weightings
• Individual product criteria weightings:
Features
Usability
Affordability
Architecture
• Individual vendor criteria weightings:
Viability
Strategy
Reach
Channel
This tool offers the ability to modify:
37 Info-Tech Research Group
These vendors enable mobile collaboration by pairing strong mobile
application capabilities with solid real-time and social features.
Today’s workforces are highly mobile: select vendors that give your employees tools for on-the-go collaboration!
Why Scenarios?
In reviewing the products included
in each Vendor LandscapeTM ,
certain use-cases come to the
forefront. Whether those use-cases
are defined by applicability in
certain locations, relevance for
certain industries, or as strengths in
delivering a specific capability, Info-
Tech recognizes those use-cases
as Scenarios, and calls attention to
them where they exist.
3 2
Mobile Workforce Support 1
For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation – Scenarios in the Appendix.
Exemplary Performers
Viable Performers
38 Info-Tech Research Group
Social-driven project management capabilities are a new direction for this market.
These products pair overall social strength with workflow management.
Social workflow management is a rapidly evolving space: pick these solutions if you need teams to work in-the-flow
Why Scenarios?
In reviewing the products included
in each Vendor LandscapeTM ,
certain use-cases come to the
forefront. Whether those use-cases
are defined by applicability in
certain locations, relevance for
certain industries, or as strengths in
delivering a specific capability, Info-
Tech recognizes those use-cases
as Scenarios, and calls attention to
them where they exist.
3
1
Social Workflow
Management 2
For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation – Scenarios in the Appendix.
Exemplary Performers
Viable Performers
39 Info-Tech Research Group
Seamless integration with other business systems and apps that publish into
the activity feed make it easier to access and engage with your information.
If you have an extensive application ecosystem requiring collaboration integration, take a look at these solutions
Why Scenarios?
In reviewing the products included
in each Vendor LandscapeTM ,
certain use-cases come to the
forefront. Whether those use-cases
are defined by applicability in
certain locations, relevance for
certain industries, or as strengths in
delivering a specific capability, Info-
Tech recognizes those use-cases
as Scenarios, and calls attention to
them where they exist.
Exemplary Performers
Viable Performers
2 1
Integration Capabilities 3
For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, see Information Presentation – Scenarios in the Appendix.
40 Info-Tech Research Group
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
HyperOffice
Collaboration Suite
~50
Rockville, Maryland
hyperoffice.com
1998
Private
Alternative solutions in this space that were not evaluated: HyperOffice, Yammer
Product:
Employees:
Headquarters:
Website:
Founded:
Presence:
Yammer
~400
San Francisco
yammer.com
2008
NASDAQ: MSFT
• HyperOffice provides decent support for personal information
management and employee intranets, but was not evaluated
due to systemic deficits in key areas across social tool
capabilities and real-time collaboration.
• The solution is becoming dated and is lacking core capabilities
– during evaluation, HyperOffice had yet to release a public
version of any social collaboration tools.
• If your firm only needs basic PIM, HyperOffice may warrant a
look.
Details regarding exclusion:
• Yammer was not evaluated in this vendor landscape due to its
recent acquisition by Microsoft.
• Microsoft’s strategy for Yammer is unknown at this point, so
Info-Tech cannot recommend this product.
• In the intermediate term, Info-Tech expects Yammer to be
positioned as the user interface of choice for SharePoint and
Lync. Microsoft desperately needs a more social UI, and the
Yammer acquisition can help secure this. Expect to see
Yammer integrated with post-2013 SharePoint.
Details regarding exclusion:
41 Info-Tech Research Group
Use these tools and templates to assist your vendor selection process
Collaboration Platform RFP Template
• Use this request for proposal (RFP) template to create a formal invitation for collaboration platform vendors to submit a proposal, meeting your collaboration requirements.
Collaboration Platform RFP Scoring Tool
• Enterprises considering a collaboration solution need to comparatively score potential solutions. A key component of any evaluation is an RFP.
• This tool enables enterprises to evaluate and compare the results of an RFP process quickly and easily.
Collaboration Platform Vendor Demo Script Template
• Use this script to standardize demonstrations and simplify the process of selecting a collaboration platform to ensure you get all of the needed information from vendors in order to make the best selection for your organization.
42 Info-Tech Research Group
Appendix
1. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Overview
2. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Product Selection & Information Gathering
3. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring
4. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation
5. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Fact Check & Publication
6. Product Pricing Scenario
43 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Overview
Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscapes are research materials that review a particular IT market space, evaluating the strengths and abilities of both
the products available in that space, as well as the vendors of those products. These materials are created by a team of dedicated analysts
operating under the direction of a senior subject matter expert over a period of six weeks.
Evaluations weigh selected vendors and their products (collectively “solutions”) on the following eight criteria to determine overall standing:
• Features: The presence of advanced and market-differentiating capabilities.
• Usability: The intuitiveness, power, and integrated nature of administrative consoles and client software components.
• Affordability: The three-year total cost of ownership of the solution.
• Architecture: The degree of integration with the vendor’s other tools, flexibility of deployment, and breadth of platform applicability.
• Viability: The stability of the company as measured by its history in the market, the size of its client base, and its financial performance.
• Strategy: The commitment to both the market-space, as well as to the various sized clients (small, mid-sized, and enterprise clients).
• Reach: The ability of the vendor to support its products on a global scale.
• Channel: The measure of the size of the vendor’s channel partner program, as well as any channel strengthening strategies.
Evaluated solutions are plotted on a standard two by two matrix:
• Champions: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are above the average score for the evaluated group.
• Innovators: The product receives a score that is above the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that is
below the average score for the evaluated group.
• Market Pillars: The product receives a score that is below the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that
is above the average score for the evaluated group.
• Emerging Players: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are below the average score for the evaluated group.
Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscapes are researched and produced according to a strictly adhered to process that includes the following steps:
• Vendor/product selection
• Information gathering
• Vendor/product scoring
• Information presentation
• Fact checking
• Publication
This document outlines how each of these steps is conducted.
44 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Vendor/Product Selection & Information Gathering
Info-Tech works closely with its client base to solicit guidance in terms of understanding the vendors with whom clients wish to work and the
products that they wish evaluated; this demand pool forms the basis of the vendor selection process for Vendor Landscapes. Balancing this
demand, Info-Tech also relies upon the deep subject matter expertise and market awareness of its Senior and Lead Research Analysts to
ensure that appropriate solutions are included in the evaluation. As an aspect of that expertise and awareness, Info-Tech’s analysts may, at
their discretion, determine the specific capabilities that are required of the products under evaluation, and include in the Vendor Landscape
only those solutions that meet all specified requirements.
Information on vendors and products is gathered in a number of ways via a number of channels.
Initially, a request package is submitted to vendors to solicit information on a broad range of topics. The request package includes:
• A detailed survey.
• A pricing scenario (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Price Evaluation and Pricing Scenario, below).
• A request for reference clients.
• A request for a briefing and, where applicable, guided product demonstration.
These request packages are distributed approximately twelve weeks prior to the initiation of the actual research project to allow vendors ample
time to consolidate the required information and schedule appropriate resources.
During the course of the research project, briefings and demonstrations are scheduled (generally for one hour each session, though more time
is scheduled as required) to allow the analyst team to discuss the information provided in the survey, validate vendor claims, and gain direct
exposure to the evaluated products. Additionally, an end-user survey is circulated to Info-Tech’s client base and vendor-supplied reference
accounts are interviewed to solicit their feedback on their experiences with the evaluated solutions and with the vendors of those solutions.
These materials are supplemented by a thorough review of all product briefs, technical manuals, and publicly available marketing materials
about the product, as well as about the vendor itself.
Refusal by a vendor to supply completed surveys or submit to participation in briefings and demonstrations does not eliminate a vendor from
inclusion in the evaluation. Where analyst and client input has determined that a vendor belongs in a particular evaluation, it will be evaluated
as best as possible based on publicly available materials only. As these materials are not as comprehensive as a survey, briefing, and
demonstration, the possibility exists that the evaluation may not be as thorough or accurate. Since Info-Tech includes vendors regardless of
vendor participation, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to participate fully.
All information is recorded and catalogued, as required, to facilitate scoring and for future reference.
45 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring
Once all information has been gathered and evaluated for all vendors and products, the analyst team moves to scoring. All scoring is
performed at the same time so as to ensure as much consistency as possible. Each criterion is scored on a ten point scale, though the manner
of scoring for criteria differs slightly:
• Features is scored via Cumulative Scoring
• Affordability is scored via Scalar Scoring
• All other criteria are scored via Base5 Scoring
In Cumulative Scoring, a single point is assigned to each evaluated feature that is regarded as being fully present, a half point to each feature
that is partially present or pending in an upcoming release, and zero points to features that are deemed to be absent. The assigned points are
summed and normalized to a value out of ten. For example, if a particular Vendor Landscape evaluates eight specific features in the Feature
Criteria, the summed score out of eight for each evaluated product would be multiplied by 1.25 to yield a value out of ten.
In Scalar Scoring, a score of ten is assigned to the lowest cost solution, and a score of one is assigned to the highest cost solution. All other
solutions are assigned a mathematically determined score based on their proximity to / distance from these two endpoints. For example, in an
evaluation of three solutions, where the middle cost solution is closer to the low end of the pricing scale it will receive a higher score, and
where it is closer to the high end of the pricing scale it will receive a lower score; depending on proximity to the high or low price it is entirely
possible that it could receive either ten points (if it is very close to the lowest price) or one point (if it is very close to the highest price). Where
pricing cannot be determined (vendor does not supply price and public sources do not exist), a score of 0 is automatically assigned.
In Base5 scoring a number of sub-criteria are specified for each criterion (for example, Longevity, Market Presence, and Financials are sub-
criteria of the Viability criterion), and each one is scored on the following scale:
5 - The product/vendor is exemplary in this area (nothing could be done to improve the status).
4 - The product/vendor is good in this area (small changes could be made that would move things to the next level).
3 - The product/vendor is adequate in this area (small changes would make it good, more significant changes required to be exemplary).
2 - The product/vendor is poor in this area (this is a notable weakness and significant work is required).
1 - The product/vendor is terrible/fails in this area (this is a glaring oversight and a serious impediment to adoption).
The assigned points are summed and normalized to a value out of ten as explained in Cumulative Scoring above.
Scores out of ten, known as Raw scores, are transposed as-is into Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool, which automatically
determines Vendor Landscape positioning (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Vendor Landscape, below),
Criteria Score (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Criteria Score, below), and Value Index (see Vendor
Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Value Index, below).
46 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Vendor Landscape
Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape is a two-by-two matrix that plots solutions based on the
combination of Product score and Vendor score. Placement is not determined by
absolute score, but instead by relative score. Relative scores are used to ensure a
consistent view of information and to minimize dispersion in nascent markets, while
enhancing dispersion in commodity markets to allow for quick visual analysis by clients.
Relative scores are calculated as follows:
1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool
(for information on how Raw scores are determined, see Vendor Landscape
Methodology: Scoring, above).
2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by the pre-assigned weighting
factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting factors are determined
prior to the evaluation process to eliminate any possibility of bias. Weighting
factors are expressed as a percentage such that the sum of the weighting factors
for the Vendor criteria (Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100% and the sum
of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is 100%.
3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product
criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and an overall Product
score.
4. Overall Vendor scores are then normalized to a 20 point scale by calculating the
arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the pool of Vendor scores. Vendors for
whom their overall Vendor score is higher than the arithmetic mean will receive a
normalized Vendor score of 11-20 (exact value determined by how much higher
than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is), while vendors for whom
their overall Vendor score is lower than the arithmetic mean will receive a
normalized Vendor score of between one and ten (exact value determined by how
much lower than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is).
5. Overall Product score is normalized to a 20 point scale according to the same
process.
6. Normalized scores are plotted on the matrix, with Vendor score being used as the
x-axis, and Product score being used as the y-axis.
Vendor Landscape
Champions:
solutions with above
average Vendor
scores and above
average Product
scores.
Innovators:
solutions with below
average Vendor
scores and above
average Product
scores.
Market Pillars:
solutions with above
average Vendor
scores and below
average Product
scores.
Emerging Players:
solutions with below
average Vendor
scores and below
average Product
scores.
47 Info-Tech Research Group
Harvey Balls
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Criteria Scores (Harvey Balls) Info-Tech’s Criteria Scores are visual representations of the absolute score assigned to each individual criterion, as well as of the calculated
overall Vendor and Product scores. The visual representation used is Harvey Balls.
Harvey Balls are calculated as follows:
1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool (for information on how Raw scores are determined, see
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above).
2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by a pre-assigned weighting factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting
factors are determined prior to the evaluation process, based on the expertise of the Senior or Lead Research Analyst, to eliminate any
possibility of bias. Weighting factors are expressed as a percentage, such that the sum of the weighting factors for the Vendor criteria
(Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100%, and the sum of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is
100%.
3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor
score and an overall Product score.
4. Both overall Vendor score / overall Product score, as well as individual criterion Raw scores are converted from a scale of one to ten to
Harvey Ball scores on a scale of zero to four, where exceptional performance results in a score of four and poor performance results in a
score of zero.
5. Harvey Ball scores are converted to Harvey Balls as follows:
• A score of four becomes a full Harvey Ball.
• A score of three becomes a three-quarter full Harvey Ball.
• A score of two becomes a half full Harvey Ball.
• A score of one becomes a one-quarter full Harvey Ball.
• A score of zero (zero) becomes an empty Harvey Ball.
6. Harvey Balls are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent overall Vendor / overall
Product, as well as individual criteria. Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name.
Product Vendor
Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan. Reach Arch. Overall Overall
Overall Harvey
Balls represent
weighted
aggregates.
Criteria Harvey
Balls represent
individual Raw
scores.
48 Info-Tech Research Group
Stop Lights
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Feature Ranks (Stop Lights)
Info-Tech’s Feature Ranks are visual representations of the presence/availability of individual features that collectively comprise the Features’
criterion. The visual representation used is Stop Lights.
Stop Lights are determined as follows:
1. Scores over 0.7 (out of 1.0) are regarded as being fully present, a score of 0.5 to 0.6 indicates a feature is partially present or pending in
an upcoming release, and scores at 0.4 or lower are deemed to be absent.
• Fully present means all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence.
• Fully absent means inadequate aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence.
• Partially present means some, but not all, aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, OR all aspects and
capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, but only for some models in a line.
• Pending means all aspects and capabilities of the feature, as described, are anticipated to be in evidence in a future revision of the
product and that revision is to be released within the next 12 months.
2. Feature scores are converted to Stop Lights as follows:
• 0.7 to 1.0 points become a Green light.
• 0.5-0.6 become a Yellow light.
• 0.0 to 0.4 points become a Red light.
3. Stop Lights are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent individual features.
Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name.
For example, a set of applications is being reviewed and a feature of “Integration with Mobile Devices” that is defined as “availability of
dedicated mobile device applications for iOS, Android, and BlackBerry devices” is specified. Solution A provides such apps for all listed
platforms and scores “Green”, solution B provides apps for iOS and Android only and scores “Yellow”, while solution C provides mobile device
functionality through browser extensions, has no dedicated apps, and so scores “Red”.
Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 4 Feature 5 Feature 3
Features
Feature 6 Feature 7 Feature 8
Yellow shows
partial availability
(such as in some
models in a line).
Green means a
feature is fully
present; Red,
fully absent.
49 Info-Tech Research Group
Value Index
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Value Index
Info-Tech’s Value Index is an indexed ranking of solution value per dollar as determined
by the Raw scores assigned to each criteria (for information on how Raw scores are
determined, see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above).
Value scores are calculated as follows:
1. The Affordability criterion is removed from the overall Product score and the
remaining Product score criteria (Features, Usability, Architecture) are reweighted
so as to retain the same weightings relative to one another, while still summing to
100%. For example, if all four Product criteria were assigned base weightings of
25%, for the determination of the Value score, Features, Usability, and
Architecture would be reweighted to 33.3% each to retain the same relative
weightings while still summing to 100%.
2. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the reweighted
Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and a
reweighted overall Product score.
3. The overall Vendor score and the reweighted overall Product score are then
summed, and this sum is multiplied by the Affordability Raw score to yield an
interim Value score for each solution.
4. All interim Value scores are then indexed to the highest performing solution by
dividing each interim Value score by the highest interim Value score. This results
in a Value score of 100 for the top solution and an indexed Value score relative to
the 100 for each alternate solution.
5. Solutions are plotted according to Value score, with the highest score plotted first,
and all remaining scores plotted in descending numerical order.
Where pricing is not provided by the vendor and public sources of information cannot be
found, an Affordability Raw score of zero is assigned. Since multiplication by zero results
in a product of zero, those solutions for which pricing cannot be determined receive a
Value score of zero. Since Info-Tech assigns a score of zero where pricing is not
available, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to provide accurate and up to date
pricing
Those solutions that are ranked as
Champions are differentiated for point of
reference.
E
10
D
30
C
40
B
80
A
100 Average Score: 52
Vendors are arranged in order of Value Score.
The Value Score each solution achieved is
displayed, and so is the average score.
50 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Price Evaluation
Info-Tech’s Price Evaluation is a tiered representation of the three year Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) of a proposed solution. Info-Tech uses this method of communicating
pricing information to provide high-level budgetary guidance to its end-user clients while
respecting the privacy of the vendors with whom it works. The solution TCO is calculated
and then represented as belonging to one of ten pricing tiers.
Pricing tiers are as follows:
1. Between $1 and $2,500
2. Between $2,500 and $5,000
3. Between $5,000 and $10,000
4. Between $10,000 and $25,000
5. Between $25,000 and $50,000
6. Between $50,000 and $100,000
7. Between $100,000 and $250,000
8. Between $250,000 and $500,000
9. Between $500,000 and $1,000,000
10. Greater than $1,000,000
Where pricing is not provided, Info-Tech makes use of publicly available sources of
information to determine a price. As these sources are not official price lists, the
possibility exists that they may be inaccurate or outdated, and so the source of the
pricing information is provided. Since Info-Tech publishes pricing information regardless
of vendor participation, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to supply accurate and
up to date information.
Info-Tech’s Price Evaluations are based on pre-defined pricing scenarios (see Product
Pricing Scenario, below) to ensure a comparison that is as close as possible between
evaluated solutions. Pricing scenarios describe a sample business and solicit guidance
as to the appropriate product/service mix required to deliver the specified functionality,
the list price for those tools/services, as well as three full years of maintenance and
support.
Price Evaluation
Call-out bubble indicates within which price
tier the three year TCO for the solution falls,
provides the brackets of that price tier, and
links to the graphical representation.
Scale along the bottom indicates that the
graphic as a whole represents a price scale
with a range of $1 to $1M+, while the notation
indicates whether the pricing was supplied by
the vendor or derived from public sources.
3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing
tier 6, between $50,000 and $100,000.
$1 $1M+
Pricing solicited from public sources.
51 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Scenarios
Info-Tech’s Scenarios highlight specific use cases for the evaluated solution to provide as complete (when taken in conjunction with the
individual written review, Vendor Landscape, Criteria Scores, Feature Ranks, and Value Index) a basis for comparison by end-user clients as
possible.
Scenarios are designed to reflect tiered capability in a particular set of circumstances. Determination of the Scenarios in question is at the
discretion of the analyst team assigned to the research project. Where possible, Scenarios are designed to be mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive, or at the very least, hierarchical such that the tiers within the Scenario represent a progressively greater or broader
capability.
Scenario ranking is determined as follows:
1. The analyst team determines an appropriate use case.
For example:
• Clients that have multinational presence and require vendors to provide four hour onsite support.
2. The analyst team establishes the various tiers of capability.
For example:
• Presence in Americas
• Presence in EMEA
• Presence in APAC
3. The analyst team reviews all evaluated solutions and determines which ones meet which tiers of capability.
For example:
• Presence in Americas – Vendor A, Vendor C, Vendor E
• Presence in EMEA – Vendor A, Vendor B, Vendor C
• Presence in APAC – Vendor B, Vendor D, Vendor E
4. Solutions are plotted on a grid alphabetically by vendor by tier. Where one vendor is deemed to be stronger in a tier than other vendors in
the same tier, they may be plotted non-alphabetically.
For example:
• Vendor C is able to provide four hour onsite support to 12 countries in EMEA while Vendors A and B are only able to provide four hour
onsite support to eight countries in EMEA; Vendor C would be plotted first, followed by Vendor A, then Vendor B.
52 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Vendor Awards
At the conclusion of all analyses, Info-Tech presents awards to exceptional solutions in
three distinct categories. Award presentation is discretionary; not all awards are
extended subsequent to each Vendor landscape and it is entirely possible, though
unlikely, that no awards may be presented.
Awards categories are as follows:
• Champion Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those solutions, that
land in the Champion zone of the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape (see Vendor
Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Vendor Landscape, above). If
no solutions land in the Champion zone, no Champion Awards are presented.
Similarly, if multiple solutions land in the Champion zone, multiple Champion Awards
are presented.
• Trend Setter Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those solutions,
that are deemed to include the most original/inventive product/service, or the most
original/inventive feature/capability of a product/service. If no solution is deemed to
be markedly or sufficiently original/inventive, either as a product/service on the
whole or by feature/capability specifically, no Trend Setter Award is presented. Only
one Trend Setter Award is available for each Vendor Landscape.
• Best Overall Value Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those
solutions, that are ranked highest on the Info-Tech Value Index (see Vendor
Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Value Index, above). If
insufficient pricing information is made available for the evaluated solutions, such
that a Value Index cannot be calculated, no Best Overall Value Award will be
presented. Only one Best Overall Value Award is available for each Vendor
Landscape.
Vendor Awards
Info-Tech’s Champion
Award is presented to
solutions in the Champion
zone of the Vendor
Landscape.
Info-Tech’s Trend Setter
Award is presented to the
most original/inventive
solution evaluated.
Info-Tech’s Best Overall
Value Award is
presented to the solution
with the highest Value
Index score.
53 Info-Tech Research Group
Vendor Landscape Methodology: Fact Check & Publication
Info-Tech takes the factual accuracy of its Vendor Landscapes, and indeed of all of its published content, very seriously. To ensure the utmost
accuracy in its Vendor Landscapes, we invite all vendors of evaluated solutions (whether the vendor elected to provide a survey and/or
participate in a briefing or not) to participate in a process of Fact Check.
Once the research project is complete and the materials are deemed to be in a publication ready state, excerpts of the material specific to each
vendor’s solution are provided to the vendor. Info-Tech only provides material specific to the individual vendor’s solution for review
encompassing the following:
• All written review materials of the vendor and the vendor’s product that comprise the evaluated solution.
• Info-Tech’s Criteria Scores / Harvey Balls detailing the individual and overall Vendor / Product scores assigned.
• Info-Tech’s Feature Rank / Stop Lights detailing the individual feature scores of the evaluated product.
• Info-Tech’s Value Index ranking for the evaluated solution.
• Info-Tech’s Scenario ranking for all considered scenarios for the evaluated solution.
Info-Tech does not provide the following:
• Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape placement of the evaluated solution.
• Info-Tech’s Value Score for the evaluated solution.
• End-user feedback gathered during the research project.
• Info-Tech’s overall recommendation in regard to the evaluated solution.
Info-Tech provides a one-week window for each vendor to provide written feedback. Feedback must be corroborated (be provided with
supporting evidence), and where it does, feedback that addresses factual errors or omissions is adopted fully, while feedback that addresses
opinions is taken under consideration. The assigned analyst team makes all appropriate edits and supplies an edited copy of the materials to
the vendor within one week for final review.
Should a vendor still have concerns or objections at that time, they are invited to a conversation, initially via email, but as required and deemed
appropriate by Info-Tech, subsequently via telephone, to ensure common understanding of the concerns. Where concerns relate to ongoing
factual errors or omissions they are corrected under the supervision of Info-Tech’s Vendor Relations personnel. Where concerns relate to
ongoing differences of opinion they are again taken under consideration with neither explicit not implicit indication of adoption.
Publication of materials is scheduled to occur within the six weeks immediately following the completion of the research project, but does not
occur until the Fact Check process has come to conclusion, and under no circumstances are “pre-publication” copies of any materials made
available to any client.
54 Info-Tech Research Group
Product Pricing Scenario
The corporate office breakdown is as follows:
• Enterprise Name: Nai-Chen Incorporated
• Enterprise Size: Mid-Sized
• Enterprise Vertical: Financial Services – Diversified
• Total Number of Sites: Three office locations, ten branches
• Total Number of Employees: 1800
• Total Number Collaboration Platform End-Users: 1000
• Total Number of IT Staff: 60
• Operating System Environment: Windows XP; transition to Windows 7 underway
• Office Productivity Suite Environment: Office 2007 Enterprise Edition
Functional Requirements and Additional Information:
Nai-Chen Incorporated is a provider of diversified financial services (insurance, banking) across the Mid-West United States. The
organization is currently looking to adopt a new collaboration platform to facilitate better communication between employee teams and sites.
There are 1800 employees with the firm, but only 1000 of these are knowledge workers who will require access to the platform (the rest are
process workers). The company is predominantly looking for a platform that will allow better collaboration around documents than e-mail –
so content management is a must-have. Additionally, the organization would like to deploy a portal for social collaboration, with features
such as employee profiles and activity feeds. Management is also interested in real-time collaboration features, though this is not a pre-
requisite for vendor selection.
Vendors provided 3-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) including list prices for software and licensing fees to meet the requirements of the
above scenario.